Oil Companies' Familiar Playbook Fails to Convince Alaskans

Record bids and steady profits undercut decades of fear-based arguments about investment and jobs.

Apr. 2, 2026 at 1:36am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A longtime Alaskan commentator argues that oil companies' familiar warnings about leaving the state if taxes are raised are a tired and ineffective tactic. Despite the companies' claims, the author points to record bids for oil and gas leases in Alaska as evidence that the state remains an attractive and profitable place for the industry to operate.

Why it matters

As Alaska struggles with crumbling infrastructure and underfunded public services, the state is once again trying to get oil companies to pay a fairer share of the wealth generated from the state's natural resources. The oil industry's predictable response of threatening to leave if taxes are increased has been an effective political strategy for decades, but the author argues it no longer holds up in the face of the industry's continued profitability and investment in the state.

The details

The author cites the example of Hilcorp, a major oil company operating in Alaska, whose founder and chairman Jeff Hildebrand is worth $10 billion and has faced minimal consequences for worker safety and environmental violations. Meanwhile, average Alaskan families are struggling with rising costs of living and declining public services. The author contends that the oil industry has rigged the legal and economic systems to its advantage, allowing it to extract massive profits while avoiding a fair share of taxes.

  • Last week, oil companies bid a record $164 million on oil and gas leases in Alaska.

The players

John Sturgeon

A commentator who recently wrote about oil taxes in Alaska.

Jeff Hildebrand

The founder and chairman of Hilcorp, a major oil company operating in Alaska, who is worth $10 billion.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“If you tax us, we will leave.”

— Oil companies

The takeaway

This case highlights the need for Alaska to reassess its relationship with the oil industry and ensure that the state and its residents are receiving a fair share of the wealth generated from its natural resources, rather than allowing the industry to continue exploiting the state's wealth while avoiding its fair share of taxes.